Tele lenses tilt and shift behavior

[hiend61]

I purchased an Apo Ronar 600/9 in Sinar board some months ago. I'm very pleased with it but I´m considering to change it for an Apo Tele Xenar 600/9 because of it's 20cm less bellows needed and the fact that the Apo Tele Xenar uses a copal 3 shutter which is quieter than the Sinar Copal shutter. I think a 20 cm shorter bellows and a quieter shutter will help me to get less ruined shots because of wind and shutter vibrations. The fact is that a friend told me that he read in this forum that tele lenses, like the Apo tele Xenar have a extrange behavior when making tilt and shift movements. Please, can any of you tell me about this?. thanks in advance.

[Len Middleton]

The problem is simple...

On a symetrical lens (dialyte, plasmat, etc.) like your Apo-Ronar, the nodal point is located between the front and back lens elements. Therefore when you tilt and shift even if the lens is mounted slightly in front of the front standard (i.e. in front of Sinar shutter), there will not be a really big change in the composition.

With a telephoto construction, the nodal point is often located in front of the lens and well away from the tilt location of the front standard. This may cause the need to re-compose the image. This is also the situation if one uses a tall "top hat" lensboard to compensate for a short bellows.

And finally telephoto lens designs typically have much smaller image circles than their more conventional cousins, and thus your ability to shift will be greatly reduced.

Everything is a compromise, and there is no such thing as a free lunch, otherwise there would be only a single viable solution...

Understand what your needs are, and what compromises you are will to accept.

Final note, is that Apo Ronar is a very sharp lens, and not certain that you will be able to find a telephoto lens as sharp, nor are you going to find one as compact...

Hope that helps,

Len

[E. von Hoegh]

Basically, what Len said. If you forsee using movements other than a bit of rise or fall, a tele will be very annoying to use. Also heavy - very heavy, with a small image circle and usually poorer performance. It might serve you well for portraits, or other pictures where movements are not neccesary.

[hiend61]

Thank you both Len and E. von Hoegh. I will keep my Apo Ronar. I prefer not having any of the problems you describe. Certainly the Apo Ronars are very, very sharp. I thought Apo tele Xenar 600 could be as sharp. I could live with the image circle of the Apo tele Xenar, but I do not want to ad more problems to the "problem" of shooting outdoors with a 600/9 lens.

[Len Middleton]

I too have a 600mm f9 Apo-Ronar, except it is the CL versions, and it is extremely sharp.

As it is a barrel mounted lens, for my 8x10 camera it is mounted on a 6x6 lensboard. I can then mounted it onto a shutter box containing a Packard shutter. This puts the lens out another 25mm or so, and thus I have the optical equivalent to a "top hat" from a front tilt / swing perspective.

But still probably not as bad as a telephoto lens, and without a doubt much sharper...

[dave_whatever]

You can avoid the weird tilt issues of tele lenses/tophats if you use rear tilt instead on front tilt, as the lens never moves.

[Bob Salomon]

You can avoid the weird tilt issues of tele lenses/tophats if you use rear tilt instead on front tilt, as the lens never moves.

But then the subject changes shape with rear tilts and swings. It doesn't with front tilts and swings.

[E. von Hoegh]

You can avoid the weird tilt issues of tele lenses/tophats if you use rear tilt instead on front tilt, as the lens never moves.

Which will not give you the effect of using front tilt. Try it on a building sometime...

[Bob Salomon]

I too have a 600mm f9 Apo-Ronar, except it is the CL versions, and it is extremely sharp.

All Apo Ronar were CL versions (at least modern ones). CL only means that the lens has a linear aperature scale. The only exception was the 150mm f9 Apo Ronar.

[dave_whatever]

Which will not give you the effect of using front tilt. Try it on a building sometime...

Depends what you mean by "the effect of front tilt" - if you're after a plane of focus from near to far for a landscape shot and are not too bothered about the often slight change of shape of the subject then you get this effect with rear tilt. If you're after keeping verticals vertical then obviously rear tilt is out of the question. I was just pointing out that rear tilt avoids the issue of the image circle moving around too much when using front tilt with a tele, that is all.

[Jeff Keller]

A 600mm used on a 4x5 has roughly the same angle of view as a 150mm used on a 35mm. Unless you are doing close-up shots, you probably won't use tilt. If you are doing close-ups with a 600mm, you must have a lot of bellows?

Shift shouldn't be a problem with a tele design other than a typically smaller image circle.

Maybe my assumption of 4x5 is way off?

Jeff Keller

[sinhof]

Bob : All Apo-Ronars are not CL-versions. I have both, 9/360 and 9/360 CL. Older is heavy 834 grams, minimum aperture is 260. Newer CL is lighter 541 grams and the minimum aperture is "only" 90. Optically they can be same. Both are very sharp. My 480 is without CL, my 600 is KLIMSCH-selected without CL and the 14/890 is CL and lighter then 600mm (2122 grams versus 2350 grams).

[Bob Salomon]

Bob : All Apo-Ronars are not CL-versions. I have both, 9/360 and 9/360 CL. Older is heavy 834 grams, minimum aperture is 260. Newer CL is lighter 541 grams and the minimum aperture is "only" 90. Optically they can be same. Both are very sharp. My 480 is without CL, my 600 is KLIMSCH-selected without CL and the 14/890 is CL and lighter then 600mm (2122 grams versus 2350 grams).

I said modern ones.

Pre 80s are different.

[Len Middleton]

All Apo Ronar were CL versions (at least modern ones). CL only means that the lens has a linear aperature scale. The only exception was the 150mm f9 Apo Ronar.

Bob,

Thank you for that information.

It does seem to be some inconsistency though, and wondering if it has to do with barrel versus shutter mount.

I have a 480mm f9 and a 600mm f9 Apo-Ronar CL mounted in barrels with 11 XXX XXX serial numbers, and the engraving does indicate the "CL".

My 420mm f9 Apo-Ronar MC mounted in a Copal 3 with a 10 6XX XX serial number does not have "CL" engraved in the front ring, although it does have the "MC" engraved.

No big issue, but just naturally curious.

Thanks,

Len

[Drew Wiley]

What th ..., Jeff ... The longer the lens, the more important tilt is, unless the entire subject lies at inifinity. Not much depth of field otherwise with a 600. I personally use a
Fuji 600C, but always on 8x10. Anything with a number 3 shutter at long bellows ext is
going to be trouble on a typical field 4x5. I don't think telephotos help that much either,
because they are quite heavy. Fuji made a 600T in no.1 shutter, with an image circle
suitable for at least 4x5.

[Bob Salomon]

Len,

The Rodenstock process lens brochure states that all, except the 150, are CL. Since CL only means that the aperture scale is linear it is very easy to tell if your 420 is a CL or not.

Apparently older Apo Ronar lenses were not, or all were not (150 excepted) CL apertures but my brochures only go back a few years. When I look at a 1985 Rodenstock camera lens brochure CL is not mentioned at all and the 300mm that is illustrated is not marked CL but it is in a shutter. The brochure that made the claim about linear scales only listed lenses in NF mount not shutter mount. And the mounts have the aperture scale not the lenses.

It is making me curious so I will discuss it with the factory people when we see them shortly at Photokina, as long as there isn't a strike by Lufthansa cabin crews.

[hiend61]

Jeff. I use my Apo Ronar 600 in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. in 4x5 a 600 is equivalent to a 180mm in 35mm, and seldom use tilt or shifts. In 5x7 and 8x10, (135 and 90 mm 35mm equivalents) I use shifts and tilts frecuently, specially in 8x10. For macro work I shot 6x7 and 6x9 with a Sinar Zoom rollfilm holder and an Apo Ronar 240/9, and for really big scales I have just adapted a Nikon and a Leica R bayonets to two Sinar lensboards, and tomorrow I´ll try a Micro-Nikkor 55/2,8, which at 1:1 will cover 6x7 with no movements and a Leica Macro Elmarit 60/2,8 which I spect will perform similarly in terms of image circle, although they "write" in a very different way.

[Len Middleton]

It is making me curious so I will discuss it with the factory people when we see them shortly at Photokina, as long as there isn't a strike by Lufthansa cabin crews.

Do you mean if the Lufthansa strike is still not ongoing? I believe it is a rotating strike hitting different locations, at least that is what I remember from BBC News (African edition) this morning...

Looking forward to what you find.

Thanks

[Struan Gray]

I use a 420 mm lens a lot on 4x5, and have to agree with Drew. That doesn't make telephoto designs unusable - I have a Nikon 360 that I want to expand to the 500/720 set - but it does mean that some of the ways they make life easy are balanced by corresponding disadvantages.

I take pictures of the ground anywhere from a few meters to a few tens of meters in front of the tripod, and always use tilt to lay the focal surface along the ground itself. Sometimes I tilt the back forwards to reduce convergence and make the patterns on the ground more two-dimensional, and then I need even more front tilt to put the plane of focus back along the ground.

When you tilt a tele, you also need to add rise or fall. Imagine the nodal point as a ping-pong ball out in front of the lens on the end of a stick. When you tilt the lens down the stick rotates with it and the ball ends up well below the line running through the camera body from the film and out to the subject. The camera is no longer looking in the same direction, and you need to apply front rise to bring the image of the subject back up to where it was on the ground glass. It's always a bit of a pain, and in bad cases you run out of coverage before you can apply enough rise.

[E. von Hoegh]

Do you mean if the Lufthansa strike is still not ongoing? I believe it is a rotating strike hitting different locations, at least that is what I remember from BBC News (African edition) this morning...

Looking forward to what you find.

Thanks

Len, are you listening to the Beeb on SW? If so, which frequency?

[Bob Salomon]

Do you mean if the Lufthansa strike is still not ongoing? I believe it is a rotating strike hitting different locations, at least that is what I remember from BBC News (African edition) this morning...

Looking forward to what you find.

Thanks

Supposed to strike again on Friday.

[Len Middleton]

Len, are you listening to the Beeb on SW? If so, which frequency?

No, on satellite TV here in Afica when all the problems are resolved (with billing, with the dish being knocked when someone fixes the hot water tank, etc.)...

[Jeff Keller]

I use a Fuji 600 on my Canham MQC (essentially always 4x5 though).

Maybe I limit what I see out of habit. I use 600mm for things essentially at photographic infinity ... say Alcatraz from dry land other than Alcatraz. Struan apparently also sees things differently. It looks like hiend61 uses 600mm for wider views with larger formats. I was hoping to understand the concern about tilts at 600mm. Thanks.

(The apo xenar's 400mm IC is significantly larger than the fuji's 260mm or the Nikkor T 600's 200mm IC ... I should have seen that as a clue to the larger formats.)



What th ..., Jeff ... The longer the lens, the more important tilt is, unless the entire subject lies at inifinity. Not much depth of field otherwise with a 600. I personally use a
Fuji 600C, but always on 8x10. Anything with a number 3 shutter at long bellows ext is
going to be trouble on a typical field 4x5. I don't think telephotos help that much either,
because they are quite heavy. Fuji made a 600T in no.1 shutter, with an image circle
suitable for at least 4x5.